Non-Zionist vs. Anti-Zionist, Part 1
It never ceases. Someone asks me "how can you be both pro-Israel and pro-Arab?" and the next stage of the discussion is invariably the same. The person's mind immediately begins the cognitive process to label me with the term "Anti-Zionist". The person then mentally supplants me into the Neturei Karta photos, holding a placard perhaps saying, "True hiphop is against Zionism."
My personal philosophy never actually comes across past this point. And no matter how much I stress that I am not anti-Zionist, but non-Zionist, many others do not -- or perhaps refuse to -- see the distinction.
As the Wikipedia article states, "Zionism is a political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states have existed up to the 2nd century." I find it hard to believe that any Jewish person alive disagrees that Jews should live "in Israel", that synagogues should be able to found on this map.
However, as the Wiki continues:
The 1967 war between Israel and the Arab states (the "Six-Day War") marked a major turning point in the history of Israel and of Zionism. Israeli forces captured the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the holiest of Jewish religious sites, the Western Wall of the ancient Temple. They also took over the remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank (from Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt). Religious Jews regarded the West Bank (ancient Judaea and Samaria) as an integral part of Eretz Israel, and within Israel voices of the political Right soon began to argue that these territories should be permanently retained. Zionist groups began to build Jewish settlements in the territories as a means of establishing "facts on the ground" that would make an Israeli withdrawal impossible.
This turning point would plant seeds. This turning point would eventually be the catalyst for a huge powder keg -- an increasing proliferation of hard-to-protect exposed Jewish settlements deeper and deeper into an increasingly hostile Arabic-speaking territory. The original reality had been achieved -- there was now a state for Jews. The Zionist movement then became attached to the expansion of Israel.
More land, more settlements. Further and further into the West Bank and Gaza.
Israel's history has always been rife with violence, but the difference between today's terrorist and the Fedayeen of yore is that today's terrorist is attacking an established sovereign entity. The very first Armistice agreements signed by Israel in 1949 with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan as well as Syria all have one line in common: "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other."
While this biased article is rife with spin, it illustrates my other point -- the Arab world, with pre-1967 Zionism (we'll call this Zionism A), was willing to negotiate. This willingness to negotiate actually -- while by all estimates it could have resulted in a horrible transfer of millions of people involuntarily -- was creating solutions complete with jobs and infrastructure to benefit both Jews and Arabs equally.
Then, in 1964, under an Egyptian proposal, the PLO was created. Up until this point, an Israel-free Palestine was not the sole platform of any organization. Following the Jordanian-inflicted "Black September", the Cairo Agreement allowed the PLO to operate in Lebanon.
We're talking post-1967 with a now active PLO with governmental sanction.
At this point, Zionism -- having been identified as an enemy -- began to change form as an ideology. Now everyone became a fighter. Zionism became "get-the-Arabs-out"-ism. This is not me.
Do I stand with Israel? As a Jewish homeland? Yes. But in my personal opinion, it would still be the homeland for all Jews were it called "Palestine". And moving there would still be considered aliyah.
Even if it were called Al-Quds, you would still have to take your tithes to Jerusalem. (And we Jews would probably still call it Yerushalayim, the capital of Eretz Yisra'el.)
Anti-Zionism echoes the same sentiments of the original PLO -- an Israel-free Palestine next to the Mediterranean Sea. This is anti-Jewish and can often border on (if not actually be) anti-Semitic. Were this 1949 -- perhaps this could be a valid discussion. One could talk about not establishing Israel.
But now that you have millions of people, millions of families, millions of dollars in property -- this is dismantling a nation. And that can't be done. Realistically speaking, whether to one's chagrin or one's pride, there is a Jewish state on the planet. Palestine extricating it would be like Belgium extricating the Netherlands. And conversely, realistically speaking, there is a place called Palestine as well.
Also realistically speaking, there are Israeli Arabs and other non-Jews. Supporting Israel is supporting them too.
It is only when two nations are recognized as having the right to exist that one can talk about borders, about agreements, about peace.
So the Zionism B we have today, I'm not into that. Call me a proto-Zionist maybe. But not a Zionist now.
I don't want to expand Israel and proliferate settlements. I just want life in whatever Israel there is to be a peaceful one and a spiritual one.
Not anti-, but non-Zionist.
I love Israel. Ani ohev et Yisra'el. W'ana b'ahab al-Isra'il.
Comments
this is .. the s(h)y(t)stem
Posted by: sista warrior | July 17, 2006 02:45 PM
Fix the background, Y - I really want to read this in its entirety.
Also, I'd love to invite you to the dialogue on Okayplayer.com, where I am fucking drowning trying to defend the very point you just made here.
- Monk Eastman/Jewschool/Kingsbridge/Kol Tehillah
Posted by: Monk Eastman | July 17, 2006 04:37 PM
As requested in a forum:
I said:
Unless I read it incorrectly, you are claiming that:
a) anti-Zionism began in 1967 after the 6 Day War
b) the Zionist movement was not originally about expansion
c) the Arab states were willing to negotiate with Israel prior to 1967 and not since
d) Palestine under Arab rule could still be a homeland for Jews
e) Wikipedia is a valid source of material in an academic discussion
Am I correct that these are all points you are making and that your blog (and therefore, your opinion on this matter) is hinged upon them?
____________________________________________________
You responded:
DAMN. This means I still wasn't clear. Leave this as a comment there so I can address it there b/c v. few ppl will see this:
a) No, I'm saying Zionism changed after the 6 Day War
b) RIGHT. The orig. Zionist movement was about establishment.
c) No. But look at the negotiations and what came out of them. Pre 1967 (well reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally pre-1970) negotiations were over things far more beneficial to the Palestinians. Also do we even HAVE peace treaties anymore?
d) Perhaps not practically. I'm stressing though that its halachic status would remain the same, and it would still be as much a Jewish homeland vis-a-vis the Torah. What, it would cease to be the place where Moshiach is going to build the Temple &c.?
e) :D It's not JUST Wikis. If the info is wrong in the wiki though, PLS let me know.
____________________________________________________
I took the liberty of correcting one of my typos and putting in some bold and italics for easier reading. ;)
Posted by: Liran | July 18, 2006 12:05 PM
This is The S(h)y(t)stem.
Posted by: Sista Warrior | July 19, 2006 06:01 AM
Very thoughtful. My views are very similar to yours, but I consider myself a Zionist. In hindsight, the settlement ideology is a mistake, and it set the stage for the tragic abandonment of settlements that would be utopic and wonderful were it not for the fact that they were built in what was essentially another country.
However, while we have to face the fact that the land we took is Arab land, we have a few big problems:
- Security. The Gaza pullout has proved that Israel proper is indefensible without a buffer zone from Gaza. Also, any Palestinian military seems likely to be composed of the terrorist groups' military wings.
- What was once two separate Arab groups in separate geographic areas is now united in a Palestinian identity, so even giving up all of the pre-1967 Arab land will still not solve the discontiguity problem.
- A big part of the economic crisis in the PA is that many of their jobs are in Israel. So any two-state solution could not involve a separation wall and closed borders.
Based in part on a conversation I had recently, my current thinking is that Israel should kind of re-occupy the PA, but not in the form of more settlements. So much of the PA hates us right now, Israel could not participate in the kind of economic relationship the PA, as a territory or a sovereign country, needs for its survival and hopeful eventual prosperity. Call it a mostly autonomous protectorate of Israel, let it govern itself but have a police force comprised of both Israelis and Palestinians, and absolutely no military. Have Israeli oversight of the education system, which is the biggest perpetuating force of this whole tragedy. Maybe one day there can be two separate states, but right now two state solutions can only result in further economic depravation for the Palestinians, continued terrorist attacks for the Israelis(and accompanying suffering for non-militant palestinian civilians), or both.
Posted by: simon | July 19, 2006 04:52 PM
Wow, I've read many of your blogs and tried to see it from your point of view, but I just can't jive with this one, Yitz. Your goals would firmly establish you as a dhimmi, and I don't want to be a dhimmi. My Libyan grandparents, whom moved/expelled to Israel in 1947 were 20th century dhimmi's, I have no intention of returning to that point in history. Turn back the clock a bit, and you might be offended here, also because the analogy isn't perfect, but let's take away the suffrage rights of black people in America; would you accept that "dhimmitude?" I think not. Yitz, you are a Jew and that's how I see you; being black is just a part of your identity as being Mizrachi-ish is part of mine (my dad is Ashkenazi). No, no, no, it's not Palestine, it's Israel, and if you can't understand why that's important, well, that's phenomenal.
Yaniv...
Posted by: Yaniv Gerowitz | July 19, 2006 06:23 PM
I know this is a late comment but I feel that I need to make some points clear:
1- The reason the six day war started was the refusal of the arab countries to accept any form of a jewish state in the land of Israel. It was an attack by all arab nations surrounding Israel aimed at destroying (!!!) the jewish state, led by the pan-arabic egyptian president Nazer.
2- Prior to the Six Day war the arabs living in the west bank were Jordanian citizens and those in Gaza were Egyptian. Only after july 1967 the Palestinians became Israels "problem".
3- A big part of Israel's jewish citizens share your P.O.V that we should withdraw from the West Bank and a Plastinian state should be established. Needless to say they are all Zionists.
4- I think it is hard for people in the U.S. to understand the level of hatred that the two nations have towards each other.
I can sadly say that in my opinion there is no solution to this problem that includes jews living together with arabs.
Posted by: Gevi Israel | September 18, 2006 08:40 PM